linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RESEND] Add a "-m" option to "perf buildid-list".

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <Yqh/EkVy99Bej46S@krava>
Date:   Tue, 14 Jun 2022 14:29:06 +0200
From:   Jiri Olsa <olsajiri@...il.com>
To:     Blake Jones <blakejones@...gle.com>
Cc:     Jiri Olsa <olsajiri@...il.com>,
        Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
        Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
        Ian Rogers <irogers@...gle.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND] Add a "-m" option to "perf buildid-list".

On Mon, Jun 13, 2022 at 03:02:39PM -0700, Blake Jones wrote:
> Thanks for taking a look at this!
> 
> On Sun, Jun 12, 2022 at 3:18 PM Jiri Olsa <olsajiri@...il.com> wrote:
> > why 'modules' ? it shows all maps (including kernel)
> > so perhaps -m/--maps would be better?
> 
>  I called it "modules" because it only operates on the kernel. Calling it
> "maps" would suggest to me that it might also be able to show
> information about the maps in perf.data files, which it can't (just as the
> "-k" option only operates on the kernel). Given that, does it still seem
> like "maps" would be more appropriate?

still there's kernel map included, so it's strange to me call it modules

  --m/--kernel-maps ?

> 
> > also please state that it's from running kernel
> 
> Happy to make this change.
> 
> > any reason why not use the dso fields directly?
> 
> I was just following my general software engineering instincts to
> encapsulate implementation details, so that e.g. the caller doesn't need to
> know about details such as the "has_build_id" boolean. I haven't made
> changes to perf before, so if that's not the preferred style, I can do it
> a different way.

we have some helpers for dso fields, but AFAICS long_name and has_build_id
are used directly all over the place

jirka